Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

libertempa_kostumo t1_j9xgkl8 wrote

Reply to comment by smokeythemechanic in Landlords and political signs? by [deleted]

If we're not going to have enough of a social safety net to keep people out of the gutter, then I don't think there should be a social safety net that specifically protects people who make stupid investment decisions and have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

−2

smokeythemechanic t1_j9xh7ig wrote

So protecting people that only take advantage of others is ok, but people that try to better themselves, get no safety net, nor are rental contracts legally binding?????

Do you also advocate for thieves because the store owner chose to invest in offering convenience goods at a mark up? If you are stealing anything, no matter what it is you are a thief and at best deserve jail time. Maybe there in lies your solution, after 3 months of no payment to your landlord you go directly to jail and get 3 hot meals a day, a cot and a job to support yourself because it's not my fucking problem to support you. There shouldn't be a social safety net for thieves, if you steal anything you deserve to have your freedom taken from you.

2

libertempa_kostumo t1_j9xi420 wrote

If we're talking about who's taking advantage of who, one of the people in this transaction was trying to profit off of the other person's need to not freeze to death, and the other person was the tenant. If the tenant doesn't have the right to live freely in a safe, warm home regardless of ability to pay, then all bets are off and the landlord is investing in a free market. Sometimes, when you invest in a free market, you lose. That's not the taxpayer's problem, that's your problem.

−2

smokeythemechanic t1_j9xiise wrote

Hold on, so it's a right for the asshole stealing housing in this scenario, but you as a landlord have no recourse for action and are just fucked if you choose to rent anything to anyone for any reason?

So you own nothing then, post up your address as a free haven for those that can't house themselves, including your food, belongings, and heat. Otherwise accept you are prejudiced against innocent people who want to better themselves in favor of thieves.

2

libertempa_kostumo t1_j9xmoyj wrote

Of course not, the existing system provides extensive legal recourse. The state already protects and enshrines your right to buy up an essential resource and rent it out at a profit. I think the state will help you out just fine under the current system, and am not particularly concerned with expanding the extensive set of legal rights you already have as a landlord. Cry me a river, in other words, I think you're going to be just fine.

But we're talking about ideals here. You fantasize about a world where you can have someone live in your little investment scheme until they run out of money, then you can get them thrown in jail.

I would prefer a world where you have a nice, clean, safe house to live in, and so does your "friend's" former tenant. You own your home, and your former tenant owns his. If your former tenant found a way to live a little closer to that world than to your nightmare fantasy, I have only warm thoughts and feelings for him, and only laughter for you.

0

smokeythemechanic t1_j9xn9fz wrote

That's the thing we aren't talking about fantasies you are talking about real people's situations and lives where the law is on the side of the people stealing the homes in question. Housing is not a guaranteed right, no matter where you live in the developed world you have to figure that out, you don't just get to take it from someone else without consequences. It's the same to say someone has a right to my friends rental house that doesn't pay for it as it is to say I have a right to your car and the food in your refrigerator that I don't pay for.

2

libertempa_kostumo t1_j9xpe07 wrote

Not really. The right to maintain a real estate investment scheme is worlds apart from the right to have what you need to survive and function in society. You should have one house that is yours, full of stuff that is yours, with a car that is yours in the garage. I don't think you should be able to buy up a bunch of houses and make other people pay a premium for the privilege of paying your mortgage for you.

It's true that most states fail to house all their people. Most developed countries do it better than the U.S., and a big reason for that is because they're smart enough to not leave so much of the country's housing up to any ding-a-ling with a little cash to throw around.

0

smokeythemechanic t1_j9y0fz6 wrote

What a myopic view of the renter/ landlord relationship. So one person has a house, they usey their retirement from a market that has proven too unstable to invest in non tangible anything, they invest in a house, suddenly you think they have this imaginary money oozing from their pores because only the ultra rich and privileged can afford a house to rent out. Now in your previous statements a vagrant has more right to that property than the person that worked 20+ years to have the nestegg to have a down payment and was able to finance that house. Why does someone that can't be bothered to save cash and cultivate a credit rating over their entire adult lives have any right to anything resembling a house. Till you understand that the people you are defending and arguing with me about just take and never give back in the first place, you are gonna keep thinking they are the victim. Look at how many people want to help the homeless people and last only one season before they tap out of wanting to help them anymore.

2